Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

[columbus]

This lacks details only looking at the results.

Exactly!
I'm talking about the big picture reality.
Southern culture is more about victimhood and entitlement. Northern culture is more about education and productivity.
Not everyone. Just in general. And the big picture shows it, whether you like it or not.
Tom

 

[columbus]

That isn't what subsidized actually are.

Yeah, actually it is.
Southern culture isn't self sustaining. Without Massachusetts and Illinois and Vermont writing them checks they'd look like Mexico.
Tom

 

[columbus]

YA? Well, Korean women are the greediest in the world. That's why they want to go get all the yen. They name their children yenchew-er. They got to business schools. Thanks for the Works Progress Administration.

You're welcome.

I guess.

Tom

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I often refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression. Because that's what it was.

I don't believe that the Unionist government invaded the Confederacy to "save those poor black people from tyranny" any more than I think that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq to "save those poor muslim people from tyranny". It was mostly about greed and power.


However, I don't see those statues as primarily about honoring the people depicted.
By the 20th century, when most were erected, black people were starting to escape the real chains. They were starting to escape the chains of oppression, poverty, and illiteracy that were the legacy of both slavery and "reconstruction". That bothered the white racists this country was full of a great deal. Those statues were primarily a message about people keeping in their place(or else).

That said, I'm pretty conservative when it comes to preservation. I hate seeing cool old stuff destroyed because it doesn't serve the current political trends. I'm more inclined to support privatization of the statues. Sell them to bidders who will relocate them to private property and use the funds to replace them with sculpture that is less divisive. That's the compromise I would be inclined to support, were I a member of the communities the statues are located in.

But I'm not. So it's up to them to decide whether they prefer racist division or unity.
Tom

I've already said, it is not up to the locals. We don't get to vote.

As for the rest of your post, it is nauseous.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[columbus]

I've already said, it is not up to the locals. We don't get to vote.

Welcome to Trump USA.
His followers don't believe in democracy.

Ask them. They'll tell you.

Amirite, @Revoltingest? Democracy is "the tyranny of the majority". It's a bad thing. That's why we have an Electoral College. To prevent the people from electing the President.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Welcome to Trump USA.
His followers don't believe in democracy.

Ask them. They'll tell you.

Amirite, @Revoltingest? Democracy is "the tyranny of the majority". It's a bad thing. That's why we have an Electoral College. To prevent the people from electing the President.
Tom

That's over-simplificatwrongulating.
I favor a democratic constitutional republic, while you
favor....uh....let's just say that it makes God cry.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, actually it is.
Southern culture isn't self sustaining. Without Massachusetts and Illinois and Vermont writing them checks they'd look like Mexico.
Tom

A culture is not an economy.

You are asserting a view without evidence.

 

[Shad]

Exactly!
I'm talking about the big picture reality.

No you only looked at the result but not the details. Next!

Southern culture is more about victimhood and entitlement. Northern culture is more about education and productivity.

Assertion. Beside which part of the nation is advocating for free collage and free healthcare? The North and Coastal areas in the NE and West.

Not everyone. Just in general. And the big picture shows it, whether you like it or not.
Tom

This is just babble to cover for you lack of evidence

 

[Shad]

That was over a century ago.

Yes as I was talking about a major difference in the economies of the South and North which is reason why the South lagged behind.

Apparently, southerners still expect other people to do for them.

Assertion

That's why I find Texit such a hoot!
Suppose Texas seceded. The Federal government diverted all the Social Security money Texans expect to pay off Texas's share of the federal debt. No more "checks" from the gubbamint.
Then they had to maintain their own infrastructure and defend themselves against Mexico, and pay to export oil to "The Remaining States".

Texas is an oil state. It will do fine.

Texas would collapse in a month.
Tom

Nope as it has oil. It is the secondary largest economy in the US. The 10th largest in the world. Remember those details you never looked at. This is one of those pesky facts that looking at the results do not tell you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's over-simplificatwrongulating.
I favor a democratic constitutional republic, while you
favor....uh....let's just say that it makes God cry.

A population majority vote does not inhibit the status of democratic constitutional republic. Certainly not a representative one.

 

[Revoltingest]

A population majority vote does not inhibit the status of democratic constitutional republic. Certainly not a representative one.

No argument here.
I just don't have the big problem with our system that he does.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No argument here.
I just don't have the big problem with our system that he does.

I have a big problem with the EC, what it represents and what impacts it has but it's hardly germane to the thread.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I am all for the local inhabitants deciding on if the monuments and flags stay or go. But it is never left to the locals. It is left to some PC political action group who wants to hollar foul.

They don't take these down because the people voted on it. They take them down because some individual is offended somewhere and has complained. If it was left to the people to vote they would never be taken down and that is why they don't allow the vote.

I thought it was the Charlottesville City Council which voted to have the statues removed. The OP of this thread indicated that that decision was struck down due to a state law protecting war monuments. So, at least in this case, it seems the locals wanted it removed, but were overruled by the state government. I guess that's kind of the same thing the Federal government did to the Southern states, which you and other neo-Confederates complain about.

You do realize the South was under 12 years of military rule. The Southern whites had their right to vote taken away. They had their right to anything taken away. Is that citizenship?

The people in the South were full citizens after their states were readmitted to the Union, including the black citizens of the South. But the state governments still tried to find inventive ways of denying them their rights just the same. That's what led to later problems and is related to the reason many people want Confederate flags and monuments removed.

Maybe if they had given blacks equal rights from the get-go, with no segregation, Jim Crow laws, or other such tomfoolery to deny them their rights - maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't have such a huge problem with Confederate flags or statues being up today. Something to consider.

Yes, the Southern whites have been citizens since reconstruction era.....by the bayonet.

It didn't have to be like that. They could have given in sooner. They were too stubborn and arrogant, refusing to listen to reason.

 

[Stevicus]

When was the US founded? Do the math son.

I thought we were talking about the Civil War. The Civil War ended in 1865. The decision of Texas v. White was 1869. 1869 - 1865 = 4. There's the math, pops.

POTUS does not make law ergo an opinion.

I think you're hung up on technicalities here. Your statement earlier said "secession was completely overlooked by law for decades." It wasn't "overlooked." The President doesn't make law all by himself, but he can certainly make proposals to Congress and has a good deal of leeway when it comes to execution of the law and enforcement. If a situation comes up which is not specifically covered in the law, then the President's opinions will carry some weight in the eyes of the people.

It doesn't mean he's actually "making" the law, but it's enough to disprove your point about it being "overlooked."

It's just that the government couldn't really reach any real consensus on the matter. Texas v. White was the only actual court case where the legality of the secession was addressed. I don't believe that the Constitution has been amended, and even to this day, I don't think Congress has ever actually passed a law banning a state from seceding.

Sure except for the point opinions do not mean law

Well, yeah, but how do you think laws are made? The members of Congress meet and discuss their opinions, or they might hold hearings and ask others their opinions. They might ask for the opinions of their constituents, too. A lot of talking and speechmaking, and a lot of opinions.

Confed leadership knew this. Hence why they tried other options before the siege. Likewise Lincoln knew this hence why he baited them

Yes. But the Confederates took the bait.

It wasn't going to be peaceful as neither side was going to give ground to the other.

Of course not. The battle lines had already been drawn. Blood had already been drawn, on both sides.

I think there would have been a war over states like Ten and Ken as both had divide populations

In the West, too. The Confederates briefly established a territory in Arizona, but were driven out by Union troops from California. At some point, they wanted to take the Southwestern US, including Southern California, in order to have an outlet to the Pacific Ocean.

Economically the South was behind the North even after the Reconstruction phase post-war and was for decades

Well, yes, as I said, it took time for them to recover. There's still a greater level of poverty and a lower standard of living, but my point is that if the Confederacy had remained independent, it would probably be in worse shape today. Economically, they'd probably be like Central America is now.

Sure. However there was never going to be an negotiations to clear up issues and disputes. For both side it was either fold or war

There are many considerations, not just for the people living in the specific areas, but also geopolitically. The right to self-determination was brought up after WW1 when the independence of the Baltic Republics, Poland, and Czechoslovakia was proclaimed. I believe their intentions were high-minded, honorable, and laudable, but as we would later see, it would lead to a great number of further problems down the road.

It's even more chaotic in areas which were previously colonized, but when independence was granted, the borders didn't quite line up with the indigenous nationalities, leading to insurrections, civil wars, and other upheavals. No matter how anything is divided, there's always going to be those who are unhappy and think they got a raw deal.

That's why the US has to go around the world and act as the world's policeman, because of these kinds of messes.

Sure. However which side is doing well now and which isn't?

But did either of them have self-determination or any say at all when their country was divided up by the Allies in WW2? I think the Allies did a grave disservice to that country. Unlike Germany, which was also divided by the Allies, Korea hadn't really done anything to deserve their fate, other than be one of the early victims of Japanese aggression, although the Russians wanted it too.

But at this point, if the two Koreas wanted to discuss reunification, I can't see any reason why the US or any other power should stand in the way.

That is if the Union broke up more than just the CSA.

Maybe. Some Confederate states might have eventually rejoined the Union on their own.

Besides yourself and 1 other user all I have seen is the Union side being repeated.

Well, there have been plenty of others; maybe not here on RF. But I encounter Civil War buffs quite a bit, and they're quite well-versed on both sides of the question.

True. More so at times what is legal comes after the fact when the dust has settled.

Yep.

Sure.



Sure. Well at least between us. I have little doubt there are people in the South that still have issues due to the war and everything that followed. Lost Cause. Jim Crow. Etc

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I thought it was the Charlottesville City Council which voted to have the statues removed. The OP of this thread indicated that that decision was struck down due to a state law protecting war monuments. So, at least in this case, it seems the locals wanted it removed, but were overruled by the state government. I guess that's kind of the same thing the Federal government did to the Southern states, which you and other neo-Confederates complain about.



The people in the South were full citizens after their states were readmitted to the Union, including the black citizens of the South. But the state governments still tried to find inventive ways of denying them their rights just the same. That's what led to later problems and is related to the reason many people want Confederate flags and monuments removed.

Maybe if they had given blacks equal rights from the get-go, with no segregation, Jim Crow laws, or other such tomfoolery to deny them their rights - maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't have such a huge problem with Confederate flags or statues being up today. Something to consider.



It didn't have to be like that. They could have given in sooner. They were too stubborn and arrogant, refusing to listen to reason.

The monuments represent the States role in the Confederacy. Thus the State should always be the one to determine if it stays. You get some blacks in city government, and some minorities, and some yankees who moved down here, elected as city council members and then that racist group the NAACP which does the hollering, they are more than willing to take down these statues because they still hate the Southern white people.

Really? When did the the states get readmitted? Describe their existence under Martial Law.

Well, maybe if a frog had wings he wouldn't slap his butt every time he hopped. What about the black codes in the North? What about the underground railroad. You do know don't you...no, I am sure you don't....the underground railroad went all the way to Canada. Know why? Blacks were not allowed in yankeeland. How stubborn and arrogant and racist were those yankees.

Here's another little tid-bit of history for you. When Abe Lincoln pronounced his Emancipation Proclamation and made slavery a reason for the war, 1863, New York city rioted. They knew they were not fighting to free black slaves. And they had no intention now of going South and getting killed just to free a bunch of black slaves. To prove their point, they hung about 80 blacks.

Wonder why we fly the American flag, when the North was so full of racism, and hate, just like their leader Abe Lincoln was. Hypocrisy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

I thought we were talking about the Civil War. The Civil War ended in 1865. The decision of Texas v. White was 1869. 1869 - 1865 = 4. There's the math, pops.

Again after the fact. After a victory was clear and done. You failed to cite a single thing before the war. Rulings made by members of Lincoln's staff do not impress me no more than selective war crime trials after WW2 which only called out one side.

I think you're hung up on technicalities here. Your statement earlier said "secession was completely overlooked by law for decades." It wasn't "overlooked." The President doesn't make law all by himself, but he can certainly make proposals to Congress and has a good deal of leeway when it comes to execution of the law and enforcement. If a situation comes up which is not specifically covered in the law, then the President's opinions will carry some weight in the eyes of the people.

Again do the math. The ruling was decades after independence. Four years after the war. POTUS opinion is not law.

It doesn't mean he's actually "making" the law, but it's enough to disprove your point about it being "overlooked."

POTUS opinion especially from one side means nothing to me. Davis thought the opposite of Lincoln. He was a POTCSA. The opinions cancel each other out in my view thus are irrrelevent. More so voicing an opinion while the war was on going is not impressive. As I pointed out before Lincoln can never accept secession so his opinion is irrelevant.

It's just that the government couldn't really reach any real consensus on the matter. Texas v. White was the only actual court case where the legality of the secession was addressed. I don't believe that the Constitution has been amended, and even to this day, I don't think Congress has ever actually passed a law banning a state from seceding.

Ergo Judicial can not make law thus rule something is illegal.



Well, yeah, but how do you think laws are made? The members of Congress meet and discuss their opinions, or they might hold hearings and ask others their opinions. They might ask for the opinions of their constituents, too. A lot of talking and speechmaking, and a lot of opinions. [/quote]

And no one result in a law about secession.

Of course not. The battle lines had already been drawn. Blood had already been drawn, on both sides.

That is irrelevant as Lincoln refused any negotiations before a shot war fired

In the West, too. The Confederates briefly established a territory in Arizona, but were driven out by Union troops from California. At some point, they wanted to take the Southwestern US, including Southern California, in order to have an outlet to the Pacific Ocean.

The populations in the two states I mentioned were far more divided. There wasn't a clear super-majority when the votes occurred.

Well, yes, as I said, it took time for them to recover. There's still a greater level of poverty and a lower standard of living, but my point is that if the Confederacy had remained independent, it would probably be in worse shape today. Economically, they'd probably be like Central America is now.

I think it could have been far worse than the South is today as the war ended the slavery economy outright and the money from Reconstruction pumped into the area.

There are many considerations, not just for the people living in the specific areas, but also geopolitically. The right to self-determination was brought up after WW1 when the independence of the Baltic Republics, Poland, and Czechoslovakia was proclaimed. I believe their intentions were high-minded, honorable, and laudable, but as we would later see, it would lead to a great number of further problems down the road.

I completely disagree with motive. Woodrow Wilson pointed out the flaws of the treaty and was proven right when ww2 started. The UK and France were broke with massive debts to the USA hence economy destroying reparation.. A German Empire would be a threat to France as Germany had been since Prussia. Beside France and the UK didn't go about providing independence to it's colonies which were far different than French or UK culture compared to former parts of the German Empire. A united Germany was something neither would tolerate.

It's even more chaotic in areas which were previously colonized, but when independence was granted, the borders didn't quite line up with the indigenous nationalities, leading to insurrections, civil wars, and other upheavals. No matter how anything is divided, there's always going to be those who are unhappy and think they got a raw deal.

This just furthers my point that dismantling the German Empire was for politics not some high-minded principle. Toss in Austria/Hungary was collapsing before the war ended.

That's why the US has to go around the world and act as the world's policeman, because of these kinds of messes.

No that was because 1. The UK was pressured to dismantle it's Empire. 2. France lost it's empire. 3. Both prior to the war and in the first year both nation provided to be incompetent.

But did either of them have self-determination or any say at all when their country was divided up by the Allies in WW2? I think the Allies did a grave disservice to that country. Unlike Germany, which was also divided by the Allies, Korea hadn't really done anything to deserve their fate, other than be one of the early victims of Japanese aggression, although the Russians wanted it too.

Both became puppets of rival ideaologies.

But at this point, if the two Koreas wanted to discuss reunification, I can't see any reason why the US or any other power should stand in the way.

Which is only going to happen following a SK model. You should know this and see it for what it is. Political babble talk with no real progress.

Maybe. Some Confederate states might have eventually rejoined the Union on their own.

Possibly. There were a number of units in the Union military comprised of citizens of Southern states. Likewise Maryland would flip as the only thing keeping it in the Union was the military.

Well, there have been plenty of others; maybe not here on RF. But I encounter Civil War buffs quite a bit, and they're quite well-versed on both sides of the question.

My comment was only about RF.

 

[Stevicus]

The monuments represent the States role in the Confederacy. Thus the State should always be the one to determine if it stays. You get some blacks in city government, and some minorities, and some yankees who moved down here, elected as city council members and then that racist group the NAACP which does the hollering, they are more than willing to take down these statues because they still hate the Southern white people.

Really? When did the the states get readmitted? Describe their existence under Martial Law.

Well, maybe if a frog had wings he wouldn't slap his butt every time he hopped. What about the black codes in the North? What about the underground railroad. You do know don't you...no, I am sure you don't....the underground railroad went all the way to Canada. Know why? Blacks were not allowed in yankeeland. How stubborn and arrogant and racist were those yankees.

Here's another little tid-bit of history for you. When Abe Lincoln pronounced his Emancipation Proclamation and made slavery a reason for the war, 1863, New York city rioted. They knew they were not fighting to free black slaves. And they had no intention now of going South and getting killed just to free a bunch of black slaves. To prove their point, they hung about 80 blacks.

Wonder why we fly the American flag, when the North was so full of racism, and hate, just like their leader Abe Lincoln was. Hypocrisy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

There are a great many sins in our nation's past. One key difference is that, in other areas of the country, acknowledging these sins is not generally considered hateful towards white people (although it depends on who you talk to). I don't know why you think it should be different for the South.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

There are a great many sins in our nation's past. One key difference is that, in other areas of the country, acknowledging these sins is not generally considered hateful towards white people (although it depends on who you talk to). I don't know why you think it should be different for the South.

I've showed you the hypocrisy of the North. And the hate of those wanting to remove Southern statues only because of their hate against Southern white people. The North was and is just as racist as the South. If not more so. And, we haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg.

I have showed you that the South was not traitor to the Union. The South was for upholding the Constitution. The Yankees hated the Constitution. So how can the South be traitor. She can't. She was just opposed to the North. Whose the real traitor here. When the South lost, America lost.

So, you can't remove the statues because we were traitors. You can't remove them for racism and slavery as the North and Lincoln were racists and Lincoln was all for slavery. Which means you must remove the Lincoln memorial. The only option you have is your racism and hatred of the Southern white people.

I guess you didn't care for my questions concerning your statements about statehood and citizenship during the Reconstruction Period. Did you look into it? When the South is divided into 5 Military districts, how is that citizenship. If you have no state, you have no citizenship.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

I guess you didn't care for my questions concerning your statements about statehood and citizenship during the Reconstruction Period. Did you look into it? When the South is divided into 5 Military districts, how is that citizenship. If you have no state, you have no citizenship.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Did you link the Fed orders to the Gov. of Texas to form a government loyal to the Union post-war? Or the offer of political positions if one supported the Union.

 

[Shad]

The decision of Texas v. White

5 of 8 justices were replaced due to the Civil War. Replacements were selected by Lincoln and vote in by a Senate which had zero representatives of the Southern States. SCOTUS is infested by politics. The court had to rule secession was illegal otherwise it would have no jurisdiction in the case at all. Which is after the fact.